PLANS AND OUTLINES OF CONCLUDING SPEECH
PRELIMINARY PLAN
α
Inadequacy of cut-off lands. Nevzorov 3.
Chernov 11.
easements. Nevzorov 6
contradictions between Lenin and Ilyin. Nevzorov
beyond cut-off lands: confusion (Chernov 1) ©
to α
“unfeasibility” {Chernov 10 no}
class struggle within commune (Chernov 2). Liberal
kulaks still there: Chernov 3
β
commune. Nevzorov 5
collective responsibility. Nevzorov 4
γ
K. Kautsky and Engels. (Chernov 8) (and Chernov 16
repetition 
of 
predictions 
about 
differentiation
proletarisation (Chernov 17)
the orthodox and the critics. No concentration (Cher-
nov 18)
δ
co-operatives (4-6 Chernov)
ε
socialisation (7 Chernov)
ζ
implanting of petty bourgeoisie. Chernov 9 and
{Nevzorov 1 p r o d d i n g o n}
Chernov 12 (Russkoye Bogatstvo)54
η
Plekhanov (Chernov 13. Nevzorov 7)
ϑ
No. 1 of Narodnaya Volya (Chernov 14)
Böttger (Chernov 15)
ι
Narodism = a tag (Chernov 19)
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PLAN
I 1—3 ι
I 6—ζ
I 4—γ
I 7—9 nil ©
!
PNMNQ


I 5—nil and α
II1—ad α
II 2—6 nil
III1-2 3—=
III 5δ
III 4 nil
III 6ε
Nevzorov β
R E S U M É O F L E C T U R E
1. Between Narodism and Marxism.
(“Gofstetter”)
Narodism is a “tag” (Mr. Vladimirov)
K a b l u k o v, N,—o n (Mr. Vla-
dimirov)
(K a r y s h e v’s and V i k h-
l y a e v’s “classical studies”
2. Between the orthodox and the critics.
Quotation from Engels (Mr. Vladimi-
rov)
and K. Kautsky (Mr. Vladimirov)
Kautsky’s “reservations”: “not all is correct”, etc.!!
Repetition of p r e d i c t i o n s (Mr. Vladimirov)—
No concentration, “w e d o n o t b e l i e v e i n
c o n c e n t r a t i o n”.
(Minimum programme)
“There can be no difference of principle between an
agrarian programme and a labour programme” (Ne-
vzorov)
3. A r e t h e r e a n y r e l i c t s o f s e r f d o m ?
Yes and no. Nil.
cut-off lands not everywhere (Mr. Vladimirov).
P o l t a v a g u b e r n i a
three types of cut-off lands (Nevzorov)
easements (Nevzorov)
Lenin con Ilyin. (Nevzorov)
labour services are not maintained chiefly by cut-off
lands (Nevzorov)
4. Marx on small property.
(1) implanting of petty bourgeoisie (Mr. Vladimirov).
(2) not our business to p r o d o n (Nevzorov and
quotation from K. Kautsky)
“family
economy”?
N i l !
& B ö t t g e r
PNMNQ
PMQ
P P
N N
M M
N N
Q Q


{promotion of technical progress}
(3) Nevzorov. (Marx against Marx)
Lenin against
5. What lies beyond the elimination of relicts of serfdom?
The class struggle or the labour principle? Nil?
O u r a g r a r i a n p r o g r a m m e
6. Mr. Vladimirov: “No one said unfeasible.”
Sic R u d i n, 1 3-1 4
R u s s k i y e V e d o m o s t i = bourgeoisie.
Quotations from V. V., from R u s s k i y e V e d o-
m o s t i on agricultural conference.55
7. The principles of an agrarian programme. N o o n e
h a s s a i d a w o r d.
8. Have these principles changed?
P l e k h a n o v a n d t h e 1 8 8 6 p r o g r a m m e.
Plekhanov and nationalisation
Plekhanov and expropriation
Marx and expropriation & mortgage
& producers’ associations.
Plekhanov said there: “The most likely thing is that
the lands will pass to the peasant bourgeoisie” (as Engels
believed)....
{Plekhanov—extreme weakness of character}
9. The meaning of our agrarian programme = the Russian
proletariat must support the peasantry. Nil.
S o c i a l i s t - R e v o l u t i o n a r y A g r a r i a n
P r o g r a m m e
10. Reactionary. 
C o l l e c t i v e 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
and the commune. “I disagree in principle” (Nevzorov).
Equality of rights but no withdrawal from the commune.
Nil.
Class struggle within the commune? (Mr. Vladimirov).
“For that reason” extension of communal land ownership.
11. C o - o p e r a t i v e s. M r. V l a d i m i r o v. T w o
t r e n d s (Where? in Revolutsionnaya Rossiya or
Iskra?)
PMQ


12. S o c i a l i s a t i o n. 4 meanings. ((Small communes =
domination of the rural bourgeoisie.))
P L A N O F L E C T U R E R E S U M É
finale:
root of mistakes
failed to understand the difficulty
our agrarian system
resumé
R E S U M É O F L E C T U R E
a)
The root of Nevzorov’s mistake is the effort to correct
Plekhanov, without having understood him. The root of
the S.R.s’ mistake lies deeper: it is a confusion of the
democratic and the socialist tasks, of the democratic and
the socialist elements, of the democratic and the socialist
content of the movement. This confusion is the result of
the entire social nature of the Socialist-Revolutionary
movement. Socialist-Revolutionarism = an attempt on the
part of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia to obscure the
working-class movement = radical, revolutionary petty-
bourgeois democracy. Like the liberal democrats, they
tend to c o n f u s e the democratic and the socialist
tasks, and also to confuse the issue of the autocracy and
the question of the agrarian programme.
b)
The S.R.s and Nevzorov have absolutely failed to
understand the difficulty in drawing up an agrarian
programme. Theirs applies to everything, and can be
used anywhere, hence: nowhere. Sd* China and Abyssi-
nia. Sr* Peru and Uruguay. It is neither a programme nor
an agrarian one. It does not reflect anything; it does
not define the m o m e n t (the historical moment: cf. 3
conditions of the programme), it fails to p r o v i d e
g u i d a n c e for the present, current struggle.
c)
Our agrarian system. No answer.
Four horizontal strata [big & peasant bourgeoisie
12 (62 out of 14) & middle peasantry 2 (4 out of
14) & rural semi-proletariat and proletariat 62 millions
* These abbreviations have not been deciphered.—Ed.


(32 out of 14)56]. If that were all, there would be no
need for an agrarian programme. But there are also the
v e r t i c a l partitions = commune, collective respon-
sibility, cut-off lands, labour services, indenture. It is
impossible to liberate the rural semi-proletarian and
proletarian for the struggle, without also delivering
the rural bourgeoisie of labour services.
d)
Resumé of the differences between the S.R. and the
S.D. agrarian programmes: 1) truth (semi-serfdom &
class struggle & capitalist evolution) & 2) untruth (mem-
ber of a trade union, “colossal organisation of the com-
munal peasantry”, balanced extension of socialisation,
etc.).
A policy expounding untruths = a policy of revolution-
ary adventurism.
Written between February 18
(March 3) and February 21
(March 6), 1903
First published in 1932
in Lenin Miscellany XIX
Printed from the original

Lenin’s manuscript,
“The Peasantry and Social-Democracy”.
Not earlier than September 1904

THE PEASANTRY AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 57
The Peasantry and Social-Democracy
Marxist Theory and the Social-Democratic Programme
1. The agrarian question with West-European Social-Dem-
ocracy. David, etc.
2.
”
”
in Russia: the old Narodniks,
the Liberals and the Socialist-
Revolutionaries. Practical sig-
nificance during reforms.
3. L a r g e - 
a n d 
s m a l l - s c a l e 
p r o d u c t i o n
Auhagen
Klawki, etc.
C o n c l u s i o n s concerning the maintenance
of labourers, livestock and land
D e n m a r k.
4. C o - o p e r a t i v e s . DAVID, etc. French reactionaries
Rocquigny
Holtz
Buchenberger
5. Specifics of Russia.
Together with the peasant bourgeoisie against the
landowners.
Together with the urban proletariat against the
peasant bourgeoisie.
6. The importance of Social-Democratic agitation among
the peasants, especially in the epoch of political revival.
Development of the peasants’ class-consciousness, and
of democratic and Social-Democratic thinking.
1. Theory of Marxism (α) on the condition, evolution and
role of the peasantry—and (β) the Social-Democratic
programme. Closely bound up.
PNNMNNQ


2. Urgency of the peasant question. The agrarian pro-
grammes of the Social-Democratic parties: the French
(petty-bourgeois nature. Criticism by Engels), the Ger-
man (1895. Breslau), the opportunist and revolutionary
wings of the Russian. (Critics. “David.”) (Bulgakov)....
3. The Russian agrarian programme of the Social-Demo-
crats, their special distinction from the Narodniks and
the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
4. The principles of the Marxist theory concerning the
peasantry (cf. Development of Capitalism, quota-
tions from Marx)
1) the role of large-scale production; 2) the petty-
bourgeois nature of the peasant; 3) his past and future &
{Souchon. Add K. Kautsky’s The Social Revolution.
5. Large- and small-scale production in agriculture....
From the M a n u s c r i p t: Hecht, Auhagen; Klawki,
Baden, German statistics, Stumpfe.
6. Conclusion: the importance of the maintenance of
labourers, livestock, land.
7. Add: Huschke, Haggard, Baudrillart, Lecouteux, Prus-
sian Inquiry, Bavarian and Hessen Inquiries, Hubach.
8. Indebtedness. Prussian statistics.
9. Co-operatives. General approach to the question. Roc-
quigny, Holtz, Buchenberger, Haggard. Statistical
data: German and Russian (public lease). D e n m a r k.
10. Conclusions concerning the West.
11. Russia’s specific features.... On two flanks.
The peasant bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat.
Relicts of serfdom and the struggle against the bour-
geoisie.
12. Together with the peasant bourgeoisie against
Tie in
the landowners, etc.
with
Together with the urban proletariat against
cut-off
the bourgeoisie
lands
13. The practical importance of the agrarian question in
the possibly near future. Exposure of the class anta-
gonism in the countryside. Democratic and Social-
Democratic agitation and propaganda.
Written not before September 1904
First published in 1938
Printed from the original
in Lenin Miscellany XXXII
P
M
Q

II
CRITIQUE OF
BOURGEOIS LITERATURE
AND ANALYSIS OF MASSIVE
AGRARIAN STATISTICS
1900 -1903
